Some like to think they have this figured out, but it's really quite complicated. What is the nature of schism? How does it really affect things? When Rome and Constantinople's hierarchs mutually excommunicated each other (individually), did it automatically change something on the coasts of Ireland, almost as if a plug were pulled from its socket? Some seem to think so. Others don't.

Determining when, and to what extent, a supposed schism has occurred, especially in regards to the Western Rite, seems to be at the heart of many disagreements about what has value and worth and a genuine place in an Orthodox context. For many, it seems, it's really as simple as the date with which we can identify the arrival of the thing in question. Sacred Heart? No, it didn't come about until the 13th century (or whenever), and it was propagated by an evidently mentally ill woman. Never mind its liturgical context (as opposed to devotional), or the actual texts of its Office, or how Orthodox Christians might actually understand it; its time, place, and personal associations are enough. We'll have none of it.

Pick your hot button issue: Corpus Christi, Rosary, Tridentine Mass, Book of Common Prayer services, Benediction, who wears what and when, etc., it all seems to focus on the timeframe of its provenance and the reasons (real or imagined) for which these various things occurred.

It's not that those factors aren't important (even if mostly logically fallacious, e.g. Genetic Fallacy, Slipper Slope Fallacy, Non Sequitur, etc.) but that the conversation hardly ever seems to be centered on how actual Orthodox Christians, under Orthodox bishops, holding to the Orthodox faith, understand these things. If it's after a certain date, we can label it "Roman Catholic" or "Anglican" or "Protestant" and be done with it.

I say all that to say, I personally find a narrative framework built upon "schism" to be largely useless. History isn't clean like that.

Fr. Aidan, Is it really that simple? I have heard from many posters here that parts of the west and parts of the east could be said to have been in communion with one another until some time after 1054 AD.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Nevertheless, when one hears the terms pre-Schism and post-Schism, they are used in reference to the year 1054, and not in reference to some other year.

A Schism definitely occurred in that year. As in the case of all schisms, one could debate, to the end of time, all the fine points, timing, signification for what is "the Church" and what is not, etc., etc.

I like to use the analogy of unzipping a jacket when it comes to the schism, each tooth comes apart gradually till the final one at the end and it's always bigger then the rest of them. The thing about a zipper though is that it works in both directions, but ya just gotta start with a big tooth

Far be it for me to "hijack" this thread, but I've been trying to research the Great Schism in regards to when Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Russia formally declare a schism between themselves and Rome? Many thanks in advance!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Far be it for me to "hijack" this thread, but I've been trying to research the Great Schism in regards to when Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Russia formally declare a schism between themselves and Rome? Many thanks in advance!

Russia would be covered by Constantinople. The Russian church didn't become autocephalous until long after the Schism. I'm not so sure you'll find much in the line of formal declarations of schism for any church, though. It didn't really work like that.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

The reality of the schism in terms of on the ground practice, rather than Bishops and monks turning their backs on each other (for good reason on the part of the Orthodox) probably was uniform by the middle of the 13th century following the Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople. http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/greatschism.aspx While there were pockets of 'unity' in Europe following the end of the 13th century, around the end of the 13th or early 14th century, the last western Benedictine monks had departed Athos and the schism was much as it has remained to the present times. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/st-benedict-on-mt-athos/ Certainly the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453 was the absolute end of that period by any reckoning.

(I hesitate to use the word 'final' for in God, all things are possible.)